Log in

View Full Version : RIP 75 Watt light bulb



AndreaGail
1st January 2013, 02:39 PM
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- The end of the 2012 also marks the end of the 75-watt household light bulb. And the new year means that the days of the ubiquitous 60-watt bulb and less-loved 40-watter are also numbered.

Blame, or credit, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, supported by both political parties and signed by President George W. Bush in December of that year.

The law created efficiency standards for everything from lighting and appliances to automotive mileage and building energy use.

The law did not "outlaw" the old bulbs. What it did was require that by 2014, common household lighting had to be at least 27 percent more efficient.

To smooth the transition, the lighting industry has been annually phasing out the old-style incandescents based on their wattage, starting with the 100-watt bulb. Manufacturers stopped making the 100 watter on Jan. 1, 2012.

A year from now, U.S. manufacturing of the 60-watt and 40-watt bulb will stop. In all cases, bulbs that are already in warehouses and on store shelves can be legally sold.

When they are finally gone, consumers will have three options: Halogen bulbs, compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulbs and electronic, or LED bulbs. (LED is the acronym for light emitting diode.)

Of the three, halogens are the least expensive, but they come with somewhat of bad reputation. For many consumers, the word halogen summons up images of extreme heat, probably because they are thinking about 500-watt halogen construction lights or 300-watt torch lights that were once common in dormitories - and the cause of some dorm fires.

The high-efficiency halogen bulb that meets federal energy standards, replaces the common household bulb and screws into the standard, medium-based household socket is about as hot as the bulb it replaces. But it's more efficient.

The tiny halogen capsule inside the familiar-shaped bulb uses less power and lasts about twice as long as old-fashioned bulbs. Also, it contains no mercury, is instantly bright and can be used with a dimmer switch.

For example the halogen that replaces the old 100-watt bulb uses 72 watts. The one that replaces the old 75-watt uses about 52 or 53 watts and the replacement for the old 60-watt uses 42 or 43 watts, depending on brand.

CFL bulbs have been championed by efficiency groups as the ideal replacement, and at this point probably are the most-purchased replacements for the old-fashioned incandescents. Some power companies help consumers pay for CFL bulbs, either with direct subsidy to the retailers or coupons sent to consumers.

The bulbs have progressively shrunk in size and price, now easily fit in most household fixtures and cost less than $2 each if bought in multi-packs.

CFLs are more than 70 percent more efficient than the old incandescent bulbs, meaning a CFL using 23-to-26 watts can match the light output of the old 100-watt bulb.

Many consumers insist that the CFLs don't seem to last the 8,000 to 10,000 hours that the manufacturers claim they will. And even the industry agrees that as they age, fluorescent bulbs dim.

Most CFL brands now come in "warm white" for home use, eliminating earlier consumer objections to the "ghoulish" quality of the light the early CFL bulbs produced. Mercury content has been slashed. And some are designed as "instant on" bulbs, meaning the warm-up time has been minimized to a couple of seconds.

GE Lighting offers a halogen-CFL hybrid that truly is instantly bright because the halogen capsule leaps to full brightness in a fraction of a second, and then slowly dims as the CFL warms up.

Though still likely to give most consumers "sticker shock," LED bulbs are slowly gaining store shelf-space - and consumer acceptance - as their price falls from about $50 to the $20-to-$30 range. The bulbs are rated to last about 25,000 hours, or more than 20 years if used an average of 3 to 31/2 hours per day.

LEDs are the mileage champs of lighting, squeezing more lumens from every watt than any other household lighting technology.

For example, GE's 9 watt LED household bulb is easily as bright as the old 40-watt incandescent. Philips offers a 121/2-watt LED and an 11-watt LED that replace the old 60-watt bulb. Osram Sylvania offers a 14 watt replacement for traditional 75 watt incandescent. All of the LED bulbs can be dimmed, though to what level depends on the make.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/01/manufacturing_ends_for_75-watt.html

Down1
1st January 2013, 03:02 PM
Thanks for the reminder.
You know I was surprised just the other day to see some 100 watt bulbs at a discount store.
Search out places like that once one can't find them in regular stores.

Heimdhal
1st January 2013, 03:36 PM
I think I'll just make the switch to LED's and suck the cost up slowly. I HATE CFL, even though we've got quite a few of them around. The old bulbs are my favorite, but with the new technology in halogen and LED, they really are out dated. Not that we needed this BS bill to save us all from ourselves.

Ares
1st January 2013, 04:54 PM
I think I'll just make the switch to LED's and suck the cost up slowly. I HATE CFL, even though we've got quite a few of them around. The old bulbs are my favorite, but with the new technology in halogen and LED, they really are out dated. Not that we needed this BS bill to save us all from ourselves.

I agree, LED is definitely the way to go. I have an outside light with 3 sockets for the older 40-watt bulbs. I was ALWAYS replacing them every 6 months warm or cold. I bought 3 LED's 4 years ago and haven't replaced one yet. Even my neighbor noticed and purchased LED's for his.

each one is only consumes 3 watts, so I went from consuming 120 watts per hour, to consuming 12 for almost the same lumens.

steyr_m
2nd January 2013, 12:23 AM
I prefer incandescent myself. The spread spectrum of light makes it very pleasing for me. I hate CFLs and not sure about LEDs. The intense light [from LEDs] with its narrow band wavelength make me apprehensive as to what it may do to my eyes.

7th trump
2nd January 2013, 04:09 AM
I agree, LED is definitely the way to go. I have an outside light with 3 sockets for the older 40-watt bulbs. I was ALWAYS replacing them every 6 months warm or cold. I bought 3 LED's 4 years ago and haven't replaced one yet. Even my neighbor noticed and purchased LED's for his.

each one is only consumes 3 watts, so I went from consuming 120 watts per hour, to consuming 12 for almost the same lumens.
Yep been doing the leds for over 4 years myself and not one has burnt out....and what a change in the electric bill for it.
Menards has $12.99 700 lumen LED bulbs (100,000 hr life) that are dimmable using only 12 watts from 60 watts and yes they are brighter which isnt a problem. I'm only using two of these LEDS in the kitchen 4 bulb light fixture and getting more light than using 4 incandescent bulbs.

madfranks
2nd January 2013, 06:40 AM
I prefer incandescent myself. The spread spectrum of light makes it very pleasing for me. I hate CFLs and not sure about LEDs. The intense light [from LEDs] with its narrow band wavelength make me apprehensive as to what it may do to my eyes.

I agree; my eyes do not like the sterile, blast white light from CFLs and LEDs. I prefer the warmer light from an incandescent. Up until a few months ago I could still find the 100 watt light bulbs at the local dollar store, but they're gone now.

Serpo
2nd January 2013, 03:01 PM
there are warm LEDs


my whole house is led now and they have two types on is warm light and the other isnt.the that isnt is good for use in the kitchen

madfranks
4th January 2013, 08:25 AM
SBU Study Reveals Harmful Effects of CFL Bulbs to Skin (http://lewrockwell.com/rep4/cfl-bulbs-cancer.html)

Inspired by a European study, a team of Stony Brook University researchers looked into the potential impact of healthy human skin tissue (in vitro) being exposed to ultraviolet rays emitted from compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. The results, “The Effects of UV Emission from CFL Exposure on Human Dermal Fibroblasts and Keratinocytes in Vitro,” were published in the June issue of the journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology.

The researchers, led by Miriam Rafailovich, PhD, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and the Director of the Garcia Center for Polymers at Engineered Interfaces at Stony Brook, conducted similar research to a European study on Light Sensitivity. Stony Brook researchers collected CFL bulbs purchased from different locations across Suffolk and Nassau counties, and then measured the amount of UV emissions and the integrity of each bulb’s phosphor coatings. Results revealed significant levels of UVC and UVA, which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all CFL bulbs studied.

At Stony Brook’s Advanced Energy Research and Technology Center (AERTC), the team took the same bulbs and studied the effects of exposure on healthy human skin tissue cells, including: fibroblasts, a type of cell found in connective tissue that produces collagen; and keratinocytes, an epidermal cell that produces keratin, the key structural material in the outer layer of human skin. Tests were repeated with incandescent light bulbs of the same intensity and with the introduction of Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles, which are found in personal care products normally used for UV absorption.

“Our study revealed that the response of healthy skin cells to UV emitted from CFL bulbs is consistent with damage from ultraviolet radiation,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Skin cell damage was further enhanced when low dosages of TiO2 nanoparticles were introduced to the skin cells prior to exposure.” Rafailovich added that incandescent light of the same intensity had no effect on healthy skin cells, with or without the presence of TiO2.

“Despite their large energy savings, consumers should be careful when using compact fluorescent light bulbs,” said Professor Rafailovich. “Our research shows that it is best to avoid using them at close distances and that they are safest when placed behind an additional glass cover.”

The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, was a collaboration of Stony Brook University and New York State Stem Cell Science (NYSTEM). Co-authors of the study include: Dr. Rafailovich; Dr. Tatsiana Mironava, Adjunct Faculty, Department of Chemical and Molecular Engineering, Stony Brook University and Senior Research Support Specialist, NYSTEM; Dr. Michael Hadjiargyrou, Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Stony Brook University; and Dr. Marcia Simon, Professor, Department of Oral Biology and Pathology, Stony Brook School of Dental Medicine and the Director of the Living Skin Bank at Stony Brook.